It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hold on a minute - Were conservatives right, about gay rights?

page: 14
37
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Im not saying that if a child displays this kind of questioning and gender identity "issue" we should not support them. I'm saying that it shouldn't become the norm.

Enabling a child to choose it's gender is dangerous. There will be many people in say, 20 years time who wish they hadn't been given that choice.


I see what you are saying, but I don't see any danger. 5-8 is way past the young impressionable age, so I don't see a problem with acknowledging that these people are real and explaining that there is nothing wrong with questioning. It's not like how a parent forces religion on children before they can even talk, let alone comprehend it. THAT is way more harmful and much more psychologically damaging than telling kids they have a choice. Besides it's not like their gender identity is always permanent and they will regret choosing for the rest of their life. If they don't jive with it, they will choose a different position. Many kids don't realize it until later, but informing your children that there is nothing wrong with being who you are is fundamental part of being human (unless you harm others).

It seems like this concept is based on fear and paranoia of more trans people being themselves, hence a higher "LBGTQ" population. To me this is far better than forcing yourself to conform to somebody's standards of who you are and subsequently living your life pretending you are somebody else to avoid scrutiny or humiliation.


edit on 6 23 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Im not saying that if a child displays this kind of questioning and gender identity "issue" we should not support them. I'm saying that it shouldn't become the norm.


you're saying it's shouldn't become the norm... to support them?

look this is kiiind of an all or nothing deal - either we acknowledge to our children that, yeah, it's rare, but some people have Gender Stuff Going On and that's fine, they're not broken or monsters - or we don't, and they continue to hide the fact that they have these feelings because no one talks about it and they go on feeling broken and monstrous.
there really is no wishy washy third option. there just... isn't.
you support your kids or you don't.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Im not saying that if a child displays this kind of questioning and gender identity "issue" we should not support them. I'm saying that it shouldn't become the norm.


you're saying it's shouldn't become the norm... to support them?

look this is kiiind of an all or nothing deal - either we acknowledge to our children that, yeah, it's rare, but some people have Gender Stuff Going On and that's fine, they're not broken or monsters - or we don't, and they continue to hide the fact that they have these feelings because no one talks about it and they go on feeling broken and monstrous.
there really is no wishy washy third option. there just... isn't.
you support your kids or you don't.


Very well put. This is kind of the point I keep trying to make. Sometimes it can be hard to find the words. The moment we remotely look as though we aren't in agreement, the other side seems to group us all in to the "God-forsaken, devil worshiping, Libtard snowflake SJW who wants everyone to be gay pedophiles who rape and murder the world and its morals." Which obviously, for almost all of us, is NOT the case.

I completely agree with what you said. I get what some people on here are saying about letting kids be kids. I agree, kids are so precious and they need not be worried about the harsh complexities of the world at large. But at the same time, I'm not for hiding the truth. I'm not for simply not 'letting it become the norm' to the point where these kids that actually do go through this are left to hide what they feel..and as you said, feel broken and monstrous. This shouldn't happen. Kids need to be loved and understood and supported.

The way you put it sums up exactly how I feel. It's all about legitimately supporting these children.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: MrConspiracy

enabling choices for a child is dangerous?

whoa, i would hate to have been your child

also, there has never been a trans that was ungrateful for a parent who gave them that choice.

Just as you are so sure of your gender, the trans is sure of their gender.

A choice is NEVER a bad idea for ANY circumstance




If I had a child I would not actively encourage them to question their gender. But I also wouldn't disallow it if it was to occur. I'm not a backwards monster.

There's a big difference. Children are easily swayed and misunderstood.

And all I'm saying is, it's a big lifestyle change to make at such a young, ill-informed age.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Im not saying that if a child displays this kind of questioning and gender identity "issue" we should not support them. I'm saying that it shouldn't become the norm.

Enabling a child to choose it's gender is dangerous. There will be many people in say, 20 years time who wish they hadn't been given that choice.


I see what you are saying, but I don't see any danger. 5-8 is way past the young impressionable age, so I don't see a problem with acknowledging that these people are real and explaining that there is nothing wrong with questioning. It's not like how a parent forces religion on children before they can even talk, let alone comprehend it. THAT is way more harmful and much more psychologically damaging than telling kids they have a choice. Besides it's not like their gender identity is always permanent and they will regret choosing for the rest of their life. If they don't jive with it, they will choose a different position. Many kids don't realize it until later, but informing your children that there is nothing wrong with being who you are is fundamental part of being human (unless you harm others).

It seems like this concept is based on fear and paranoia of more trans people being themselves, hence a higher "LBGTQ" population. To me this is far better than forcing yourself to conform to somebody's standards of who you are and subsequently living your life pretending you are somebody else to avoid scrutiny or humiliation.



5-8 is still certainly an impressionable age. Allowing a child to live their life as who they "feel" they are is of course, a great thing.

However ALL im saying is actively telling a child "forget how you were born you can choose your gender" at the age of 5 is potentially damaging to the child.

However, like I've said, if the child was already experiencing these thoughts and feelings, I am 100% against supressing them and 100% for supporting them.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

its reassuring to know that you would support your child. Yes 5 is too young to start taking steroids or medicines to enhance the change, but if your boy wants to wear a dress or your girl doesnt...its very uplifting to see them happy in their own clothes. Also 5 is young enough that if you see a change back to birth sex, then nothing dangerous was done...they tried and didnt like it but happy the whole time.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder
a reply to: AMPTAH

....dude, are you honestly saying men and women can't be friends?


What do you mean by friends?

I'm friends with my cat, and my pet dog.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

I personally have no issue with a boy wearing a dress (for example) if he feels that's what he wants to wear.

However, opening that child up to ridicule (being realistic) is something a parent must seriously contemplate. As that CAN damage the child long term. Especially considering, like you mentioned, it may just be a temporary "phase"

I guess education is key. But how early that education should start is perhaps where it gets complicated.



edit on 28-6-2017 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

5-8 is still certainly an impressionable age. Allowing a child to live their life as who they "feel" they are is of course, a great thing.


I agree with you for the most part. Children are most impressionable prior to age 8 and from there it's basically more impressionable the further back you go. It was either 8 or 9 that I realized Santa was fake.


However ALL im saying is actively telling a child "forget how you were born you can choose your gender" at the age of 5 is potentially damaging to the child.


Yeah, but that's a bit extreme, and I don't think that is what people are advocating for. Most kids don't realize their sexual preference until preteen years, so it might not come up that early. It is also damaging to tell a child that it is wrong to be attracted to a certain type of person, wear certain things, or tell them they have to act certain ways just because of their sex. That can also be psychologically damaging, but those are the 2 extremes of each view. Most parents probably won't mention it to their children unless they ask or bring it up.

I agree with you, I'm just saying that if people are against the idea of giving kids a choice prior to age 8 to avoid being psychologically damaged, they should also be against the idea of forcing religion on them during those impressionable years as well.
edit on 6 29 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

5-8 is still certainly an impressionable age. Allowing a child to live their life as who they "feel" they are is of course, a great thing.


I agree with you for the most part. Children are most impressionable prior to age 8 and from there it's basically more impressionable the further back you go. It was either 8 or 9 that I realized Santa was fake.


However ALL im saying is actively telling a child "forget how you were born you can choose your gender" at the age of 5 is potentially damaging to the child.


Yeah, but that's a bit extreme, and I don't think that is what people are advocating for. Most kids don't realize their sexual preference until preteen years, so it might not come up that early. It is also damaging to tell a child that it is wrong to be attracted to a certain type of person, wear certain things, or tell them they have to act certain ways just because of their sex. That can also be psychologically damaging, but those are the 2 extremes of each view. Most parents probably won't mention it to their children unless they ask or bring it up.

I agree with you, I'm just saying that if people are against the idea of giving kids a choice prior to age 8 to avoid being psychologically damaged, they should also be against the idea of forcing religion on them during those impressionable years as well.


Very well put.


I completely agree and couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: StookieWilliams

Okay, well to a larger degree, I believe the government should not have the power to dictate what we do in our personal lives. "supporting" gay marriage is less about advocating for these particular people, and more about advocating for individual freedom.

Saying I support it is more to say that I do not have my own agenda against gay people in this thread...

But the lgbtqiaap group.. I do have something against.

It's ridiculous. I don't need a tiny portion of the population that I don't need to know about taking up any resources at all. If a politician or any government affiliated organization "supports" this madness with any amount of time, legislation creation, etc ... , that means our tax dollars are going towards the support of this insane agenda.

If such support is not happening.. I'm okay as far as that goes - but the amount of time such topics are drilled into us by the media is a whole other discussion.



What do you think the gays are going to spend your tax dollars on? Federally sanctioned nightclubs?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Check above.


Yeah, but they were testing to see if they'd get equal treatment. Normal circumstances, not something we'd see! I do find it interesting that all the bakers refused them.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Equally? So, which gay-owned businesses were shut down for refusing to support Biblical ideals on a cake, or in photos, etc?


Stop pretending you are using "biblical ideals". Homosexuality isn't even mentioned in the new testament, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of your faith. You are referring to one single verse in the old testament as unwavering truth while ignoring the numerous other commandments in that very same book allowing slavery, the stoning of disobedient children, forbidding eating shellfish, forbidding the wearing of mixed fabrics, etc. Do you take all of those verses as literal truth as well or are you cherry picking? As if I even need to ask...

Don't try to disguise bigotry and fear with the bible or following god. If anything, that makes your argument fall off a cliff. I'd wager that a business owned by a homosexual wouldn't have a problem with putting biblical stuff on a cake if that's what the customer wanted. Any business that refuses a paying customer is destined for failure.



Yes, in fact, it is. Who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't use as a basis for their beliefs?? Get over that attitude.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Maybe not specifically cakes but it is christian groups that have historically pushed for things like censorship and prohibition. You can say they were not your group of christians but they were still christians.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Yes, in fact, it is. Who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't use as a basis for their beliefs?? Get over that attitude.


Cherry picking is a fallacy. People take Genesis literally, but then Leviticus, they only pay attention to a couple passages, oddly enough the anti homosexual verse is a huge deal to modern Christians, but they ignore almost all other commandments in Leviticus. It is an inconsistent position, so yes, as a skeptic, I question the justification for the anti homosexual position and the claim that it has anything to do with biblical ideals, when you ignore so much of it. To be consistent with the bible, you guys should also be anti shell fish, anti mix fabric wearing, and pro slavery. But you aren't. You can't just claim the bible is word of god, but only for certain parts. You clearly have hatred for certain people that you believe are inferior. You lean on the bible to relieve you of this guilt (and likely self loathing over your own desires toward that), but there is no logical way to justify this position in the least based on the bible or Christianity.

Please post the anti gay passages from the new testament. Jesus never said it was okay to treat people as inferiors. It's not okay to hate and call it Christian values, as if you are just innocently trying to be nice and love god. Attacking others who believe differently goes against Christian values directly, as does judging others, failing to use empathy and compassion for other people.
edit on 7 17 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Maybe not specifically cakes but it is christian groups that have historically pushed for things like censorship and prohibition. You can say they were not your group of christians but they were still christians.


We're talking about the deliberate targeting of a business, over something like a wedding cake.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Yes, in fact, it is. Who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't use as a basis for their beliefs?? Get over that attitude.


Cherry picking is a fallacy. People take Genesis literally, but then Leviticus, they only pay attention to a couple passages, oddly enough the anti homosexual verse is a huge deal to modern Christians, but they ignore almost all other commandments in Leviticus. It is an inconsistent position, so yes, as a skeptic, I question the justification for the anti homosexual position and the claim that it has anything to do with biblical ideals, when you ignore so much of it. To be consistent with the bible, you guys should also be anti shell fish, anti mix fabric wearing, and pro slavery. But you aren't. You can't just claim the bible is word of god, but only for certain parts. You clearly have hatred for certain people that you believe are inferior. You lean on the bible to relieve you of this guilt (and likely self loathing over your own desires toward that), but there is no logical way to justify this position in the least based on the bible or Christianity.

Please post the anti gay passages from the new testament. Jesus never said it was okay to treat people as inferiors. It's not okay to hate and call it Christian values, as if you are just innocently trying to be nice and love god. Attacking others who believe differently goes against Christian values directly, as does judging others, failing to use empathy and compassion for other people.


No fallacy. What you seem to be missing is that there are different types of laws given. Some are moral laws, some are ceremonial, and some are diet-related. The latter sorts were given to a specific people, not to all people, and the NT makes it clear that all believers are not supposed to follow said laws. Behavioral laws, moral laws, are different, and the NT does, in fact, state that homosexuality is wrong.

In regard to the Biblical model for marriage:

Matthew 19:4-6 - "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Referencing that homosexual acts are not approved:

Romans 1:26-27 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

There are many other references to unclean behavior, and to abominations, also to any sort of sex outside of approved marriage being wrong, and a sin.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

We're talking about the deliberate targeting of a business, over something like a wedding cake.


Everyone should be able to buy a wedding cake, even people who are not being married.

I could be making a fictional "home movie" and just want a wedding cake for that part of my "script".

It gets a little different, however, when you're asking someone to create a wedding cake for you.

That is, this is not a general wedding cake that anybody can walk into a store and buy, it's a "custom cake."

In that case, part of the "custom product" involves the artist "stamp of approval".

You can go to many architects and request them to design your building, and the architect has the right to refuse. He can say "I don't design that type of building", or "I don't do work in that area". He's entitled to that refusal, because this is the work of "art" that carries his "name," and it becomes part of his identity, part of his "legacy", even though you own it after.

So, the wedding cake issue, is more complicated than it is usually presented by the media. Are you trying to buy a wedding cake from a "special artist", because you "admire his work"? Then he has the right to refuse that "commission", if it conflicts with is "artistic genre."

But, if you just need a wedding cake, that anybody can make, then just buy one from anybody who isn't a specialty "artist" with a preferred working domain.





edit on 17-7-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
We're talking about the deliberate targeting of a business, over something like a wedding cake.

You said it was not something we would see from christians if they were not testing to see if they would get equal treatment.

Any example to the contrary would apply to proving that statement false, not just cakes.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No fallacy. What you seem to be missing is that there are different types of laws given. Some are moral laws, some are ceremonial, and some are diet-related. The latter sorts were given to a specific people, not to all people, and the NT makes it clear that all believers are not supposed to follow said laws. Behavioral laws, moral laws, are different, and the NT does, in fact, state that homosexuality is wrong.


Who cares what aspects of humans the laws are related to? They are commandments of god, given to his "chosen" people to be a template for society. So basically you are telling me that Leviticus is NOT the word of god, or that some of it doesn't matter because it's not behavioral?? I'm really confused, is it word of god or not?

Can you post the NT verses that explain why it's okay to ignore certain parts of Leviticus? I haven't seen any that say not to follow the old testament, and can think of 3 off the top of my head (one by Jesus himself) that say to follow the law of the prophets (OT) to the letter.


Matthew 19:4-6 - "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."


That is REALLY stretching.


Romans 1:26-27 - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."


Ok, you were right about this, although that was a letter from Paul to the Romans, it's wasn't actually Jesus or god stating that.




top topics



 
37
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join